← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/14740/2013allowed

Grish Sharma v. State Of Haryana & ANR

2023-05-01Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara2 pages

2023:PHHC:063277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14740-2013 Date of Decision: 01.05.2023 Grish Sharma ......... PeƟƟoner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ......... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present

Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Legal Aid Counsel for the peƟƟoner. Mr. Manish Bansal, D.A.G, Haryana.

Mr. NiƟsh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) DissaƟsfied by the dismissal of his complaint filed under SecƟon 138 of NegoƟable Instruments Act for want of the complainant's appearance and further dismissal of the revision filed before the Sessions Court, the complainant had come up before this Court by filing the present peƟƟon which bears the date 01.05.2013. 2.

AŌer 08.12.2022, counsel for the peƟƟoner stopped appearing and as such, this Court had appointed a legal aid counsel. 3.

I have heard counsel for the parƟes and gone through the peƟƟon. On 22.07.2010, learned JMIC, Faridabad dismissed the peƟƟoner's complaint because of the absence of the complainant. Prior to that, the concerned Judicial Magistrate had given reasoning about the accused to be discharged. However, she stopped at that point and instead of discharging the accused on merits, dismissed the peƟƟon in default. 4.

Challenging the said order, instead of coming to this Court under SecƟon 378

(4) Cr.P.C., the complainant filed a criminal revision. Vide judgment dated 23.04.2012, learned Sessions Court dismissed the revision for want of jurisdicƟon. Aggrieved by that, the peƟƟoner had come up before this Court under SecƟon 482 Cr.P.C. JYOTI 2023.05.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CRM-M-14740-2013 2023:PHHC:063277 5.

This Court treats the present peƟƟon under SecƟon 482 Cr.P.C as a peƟƟon under SecƟon 378 (4) Cr.P.C. and based on such provision, this Court is proceeding further. Although, the trial Court was convinced that the accused need to be discharged but instead of passing the said order, she dismissed the complaint in default. The complainant's stand was that he did not get avail opportunity to prosecute his complaint and earlier the respondent was absent on so many occasions and at that Ɵme, the Court accommodated him and was lenient but when the complainant was absent it was dismissed in default. 6.

Be that as it may, this Court is not in concurrence with the grounds taken by the peƟƟoner. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 22.07.2010 does not menƟon that for how much Ɵme the Court waited for the complainant. The peƟƟoner's stand was that the case was earlier listed on 15.02.2010, when the Judge was on leave and the maƩer had been adjourned to 20.07.2010 and due to said confusion, he did not come to know about the date because it was not conveyed to him. He submiƩed that in case the Judge was not on leave there was no reason for him to miss the date. 7.

I am saƟsfied with the explanaƟon offered in the present peƟƟon. Given above, the present peƟƟon is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.07.2010 and also the judgment dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge are quashed and set aside. The maƩer is remanded back to the trial Court. The parƟes are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.05.2023. In case, the trial Court puts noƟce of accusaƟon to the accused and does not discharge him, then in such an eventuality, the trial shall be completed on the top most priority. Further, the proceedings Ɵll the stage of noƟce of accusaƟon also be taken on top priority.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 01.05.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No JYOTI 2023.05.04 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.